Tuesday, March 31, 2015

If you are not willing to risk the unusual, you will have to settle for the ordinary.

(Jim Rohn)There will be presented many other interesting- some important and influential too papers at ICCF-19.

UNCLASSIED PAPERS AT ICCF-191.Scarborough The Center to study Anomalous Heat Effects at Texas Tech University

In principle, this paper is about an action rivaling as significance with that of the Tohoku University just going viral on the web. I don't know the author and could not find anything about him/her? by a fast search. This is the Center created by Prof. Robert Duncan (former SKINR Director) see:

I am waiting this presentation with ardent interest: what is the orientation, strategy, philosophy

of this center, think Rob Duncan that there is no other way than the Scientific Method in its pure form? Palladium or transition metals?

2.Francesco Celani

Observation of Macroscopic Current and Thermal Anomalies, at HT,by Hetero-structures on thin and long Constantan wires under H2 gas.The very interesting and original idea of Celani - a new LENR (not LENR+) method has not been a great success per se (I think because deeply degassing of the systems is a must) but was very inspiring and had a lot of beneficial collateral effects.

We will also know the final word of the SKINR Lab about these Constantan wires.

Palladium may be still “shining” at a few conferences, but the glow has tarnished considerably in the race for commercial viability. “Classic LENR” in general is:

1)Low power – typically subwatt

2)Based on electrolysis of heavy water at low temperature

3)Poor to very poor reproducibility

4)Expensive electrodes - $1000/gram range

5)High COP – but only if the experiment is kept well below one watt

6)Inverted economy of scale – lower COP at higher temperature

In contrast, nouveau LENR (aka dogbone) version is

1)Three to four orders of magnitude higher power output

2)Based on solid state -> gas phase at elevated temperature

3)(Apparently) more reproducible, even without precisely following earlier work

4)Low cost materials

5)Modest, but usable COP

6)Threshold for maximum gain appearing near 1300k-1400k.

It is easy to see why “Classic LENR” is essentially on its last legs as far as commercial relevance goes – and yet there are a few lessons, generally overlooked, which can be applied to the newer efforts.

Of significant but controversial importance is the one common denominator in both technologies: lithium.

It is arguable, in retrospect, that the classic LENR of the P&F is a lithium reaction which is triggered by deuterium… instead of deuterium fusion. Of course, it could be a little of both, and thermal gain can happen with other electrolytes and with protium. But lithium is preferred, and the interlocking parameters suggest that the reaction is more complex than we have ever imagined, since there is little high energy radiation.

Plus, if and when helium is seen in the ash – it could as easily derive from lithium, as opposed to deuterium fission. In fact, deuterium fusion should produce tritium, so when that isotope is not seen, the best evidence for the key to the reaction shifts to lithium – instead of D+D fusion.

This failure to understand that LENR is primarily a lithium reaction could relate to 3) above which the poor reproducibility of classic LENR.

The reason for this relates to weapons, National Labs, and the need to extract the important isotope – lithium-6 which is only 6-7% of natural lithium. Natural lithium is rare and expensive, and if the US Military had to pay the true price of enrichment of the needed lithium-6 – by writing off the entire inventory of Li-7, then it would have put the country at a great disadvantage against our enemies.

Therefore, and given that lithium which is depleted in lithium-6 works just fine for the main present use of the element - which is in advanced batteries, then what we see is that all of this gigantic inventory of lithium, which was depleted to extract Li-6 – went out on the lithium market for batteries. No one was the wiser, until recently.

Consequently, until recently, when a researcher bought the common electrolyte – lithium hydroxide, and did not specifically order and pay for natural isotopic balance – then there was little assurance that he was not getting a product which had already been depleted of the active isotope for LENR.

The result is poor reproducibility – to the extent that the reaction is a lithium-6 fueled reaction.

This is one explanation for the poor historic reproducibility, but there are others.

b) Unknown- to the theory papers From the title it sounds like the Godes paper is an attempt to validate their theory rather than a report on improved performance. I guess that we'll see.

DAILY NEWSREGARDING THE NEAR FUTURE:a) It is very probable that we will hear about new results from Parkhomov only at ICF-19;b) The Parkhomov replications by Brian Ahern and MFMP are ongoing and we have the best chances to get good or even extraordinarily good news from therec) The Great news disseminating rapidly on the Web in many languages is the Tohoku Univ.- CLEAN-PLANET 5 years plan- it is again essential to know which way will they say they are going and which way will they go? Are they aware of the difference between LENr and LENR+? Palladium loyalists or Ni- transition metals investigators?d) Lets hope that the LENR CITIES Meeting with Industrialist at Milano will be fruitful.e)! Yesterday I have read for the first time that Rossi is publishing a scientific paper about the explanation of enhanced excess heat in his devices- see the link with discussions below.Which scientific journal, who will be the bold scientists to do the peer review? This event could have a great impact. Rossi saays it can appra in May, I read this as as August the soonest.

Rossi has stated that the input power to his reactor must be supplied using an AC source in order for the LENR reactor to be viable. Putting this together with the revelation from Piantelli that pressure change is required to fire up the LENR reaction can lead us to speculate about the reaction mechanisms involved connecting these seemingly unrelated revelation. But these tidbit of clues can be conceded within a theoretical context.

To start with, nanoparticle production in a supercritical medium is activated by a pressure and/or temperature change. Hydrogen is a supercritical medium in which hydrides of lithium and/or aluminum are dissolved. A change in pressure will produce nanoparticles of lithium and/or aluminum if a pressure wave of sufficient strength is broadcast through the hydrogen gas.

Nanoparticles are the mainstay of the LENR reaction since they produce SPPs within any aggregation of nanoparticles. An alienating current will produce a magnetic pressure wave in the hydrogen gas that will result the formation of a sound wave in the hydrogen with a wave length equal to the wavelength of the AC current that generates the sound wave pulse.

Parkhomov currently uses a 50 cycle sine wave. Rossi uses a more complicated pulsed waveform with a more rapid rise in voltage that would produce a more powerful acoustic wave.

This speculation regarding the shape of the input current waveform and the production of nanoparticles raises the possibility to allow a intelligent control circuit to control the LENR reaction by adjusting the production of hydride nanoparticles so that these nanoparticles are either stopped from forming to slow the reaction or to increase the strength of the reaction by adjusting the shape of the pulse to produce a more powerful acoustic wave in the hydrogen gas. This reaction control to support the power of the LENR reaction can be carried out while keeping the input power constant using an intelligent alternating current waveform generator.To this, our Vortex colleague Bob Cook (who, I hope will visit me the coming Fall) has answered:Axil makes good points. Also the magnetic field changes the allowable energy states in a coherent system, which the nano particles may well constitute. Thus low energy states which are in change may allow resonant nuclear changes that would not normally be observed.

I think Norman Cook's nuclear structure and how it is influenced by magnetic field strength will be of great interest in predicting conditions favorable for LENR to occur.

Calculation of the spin states of nuclei, which have relatively small differential energies,may allow correlation with observed soft x-rays and other EM radiation observed in LENR and other phenomena without theoretical explanation.

With these ideas I look forward to the presentations of Peter Hagelstein, Meulenberg, Vysotskii, Cook and Dallacasa. Others that involve the prediction of magnetic fields, such as Axil suggests is associated with SPP's of nano particles, are also of interest.

The whole lineup of papers is significant. I would like to see some that address spin coupling of the nuclei and electrons in nano particles. Meulenberg's paper may come closest to this area of small energy transitions and be consistent with the nature of the LENR without its gammas or energetic particles.

OTHER

a) THE MYTHS WE ALL BELIEVE ABOUT BREAKTHROUGH THINKING

AHA MOMENTS DON'T JUST HAPPEN, THEY ARE USUALLY PRECEDED BY DEAD ENDS AND BAD IDEAS. HERE'S HOW TO TROUBLESHOOT YOURSELF TO SUCCESS.

I am addicted to it, this is the reason to offer you this writing about caffeine. You?:

b)The secret history of caffeine: Starbucks science and the back story of everyone’s favorite morning habit.Caffeine doesn't give you energy. Here's the amazing, real story of its discovery -- and how it works on your brain by THOR HANSON

Monday, March 30, 2015

MOTTONo theory is good unless it permits, not rest, but the greatest work. No theory is good except on condition that one use it to go on beyond.André GideI want to add that in matter of cold fusion/LENR the same principle as for medicines applies- "primum non nocere" i.e. "first do not harm". Realistic theories here are (will)bunches of different sub-theories combined so the existent ones explain only small fragment of the phenomena and are not best for predicting. "Do no harm" refers mainly to the trend of some theories to dominate and displace the other theories, even with the price to become an obstacle for the progress.A plethora of theories will be at ICCF-19.If you started, continue to think about ICCF-19! I have/want to tell what I think about the theory papers to be presented at ICCF-19. The first thing to do with them is to classify them. There are "local" theories made directly for LENR and Great theories that explain everything including LENR. I will try an ad-hoc taxonomy; after presentation, this will probably change somewhatA. Local theories, familiar ( we know the theorists for many years and we ahve followed the development of his brainchildren)

1. Akito Takahashi Fundamental of Rate Theory for CMNS2. Peter HagelsteinCurrent Status of the Theory and Modelling
Effort Based on Fractionation

4. Andrew MeulenbergNature of the Deep Dirac
Levels3a. Andrew Meulenberg5.Basis for Femto-molecules and -ions created from
femto-atomsThis is related to

6. Jean-Luc Paillet

The Basis for Electron Deep Orbits of the Hydrogen Atom

7. Fulvio FrisoneNuclear exothermic reactions in lattices: a
theoretical study of d-d reactionWe have then papers inspired by or supporting the very popular and ambitious Storms theory- NAE, nanocracks, Hydrotons based- more or less:

8. Vladimir Vysotskii

Spontaneous Formation of Coherent Correlated
States in Changing Nanowells and Nanocracks- the Universal Way for LENR Realization

9. Tetsuo Sawada

An Example of the Nuclear Active Environment of
Cold FusionIf my memory works well, these authors are also not newcomers in LENR/at ICCFs

10. T. Toimela

Theoretical Study on the Transmutation Reactions

11. Jirohta Kasagi

Screening Energy of the D+D Reaction in an
Electron Plasma deduced from cooperative colliding reaction

Graham Hubler is one of LENR's leaders (SKINR director) and a great electrochemist, so this paper is a surprise, a question mark and something disturbing till known:

12. Graham Hubler

On a Possible Cosmological Explanation for the
Anomalous Heat EffectA possible cosmological explanation is something beyond control- at first sight.B. Other LENR theories, new ideas, new wave?:

The E-Cat this week has been good, with very, very extended ssm periods. I prefer to give data regarding the COP after the end of the test.From inside the plant,A.R., with Warm RegardsAndrea RossiMarch 30th, 2015 at 8:18 AM

Mark Saker:It is the SSM that has increased and, consequently, the driving time is decreased.Warm Regards,A.R.

Marco Serra:Good question. The improvements are due mainly to the fac that for the first time we can operate for a very long period, 24/7 the 1 MW E-Cat Lady. We are learning to know Her better, using Her. We can operate changements using the regulation of the control system; surely, as you correctly say, we cannot make major modifications with the E-Cat in operation.About the final results: honestly, I think that the final results could be positive, but also negative, even if the more we advance through the test path, the more the probability of a successful output increase; at the moment I give 50.1% positive chance, 49.9% negative.I am 64 years old, working from more than 40 years, made about 1,500 plants of various kind, seen too many problems arise from new plants not to be worried of what from the next future will come. My foreseeable future is tomorrow: beyond that I need a cristal ball. That’s why I stay with Her 16 hours per day, included Christmas and Easter.Warm Regards,A.R.

It sounds encouraging, I will be (if) only 83 years in 2020:Clean Planet Inc. and Tohoku University are launching “Clean
Energy Research Lab” at Tohoku University on April 1st, 2015.
The mission of the “Clean Energy Research Lab” is to develop a
clean, safe and abundant form of energy for our global community.
This new research division will be devoted to developing practical
applications for clean energy using LENR, Low Energy Nuclear
Reaction, (a.k.a. Cold Fusion). This is the first official research
division created for condensed matter nuclear science and its
application in Japan. We are determined to bring the application
models from this division to the market before the Tokyo Olympics
in 2020.

AXIL DIXITI note that there is a goodly number of papers covering RF emissions from the deuterium systems scheduled for the ICCF-19 conference. I believe that RF emissions is a negative sign or influence for the LENR reaction because this EMF emission robs power from the reaction and broadcasts that power to the far field. It is analogues to a poorly timed gasoline engine that produces little useful output power and lots of unburned fuel. The deuterium reaction is prone to produce this LENR reaction pollutant because of the nuclear spin characteristic of deuterium. Deuterium is far more NMR active than hydrogen... protium (name rarely used, symbol 1H) is. The best LENR hydrogen isotope for the LENR reaction is the most NMR inactive with a zero nuclear spin.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Growth is the only evidence of life. (John Henry Newman)I have continued to think about the ICCF-19 program. To err is human, it seems I missed to include two papers in he list of yesterday:A. Possibly also with technological implications:

B. The hardcore of the presentation is, as it was at all ICCFs, about the existential, understanding and development problems of the Palladium Deuterium system. Old poisoned challenge to problem solving, let's see if some breakthrough has appeared and if my Pdisaster idea was killed by facts- I hope so, even if it sounds a bit schizophrenic

1. Vittorio Violante

Heat Production and RF detection during cathodic polarization
of Palladium in O.1 MLiOD

Observations of RF Emissions and heat in
electrochemical loading experiments

14. David Knies

A Method to Control Palladium Crystallographic Texture and
Surface Morphology

15. Francesca Sarto

Morphology and electrochemical properties of
Pd-based nanostructures deposited by different thin-film techniqueObviously for commenting about these papers I have to read and study them.Breakthrough or not breakthrough, morphology and heat release connected, the actionable parameters were eventually found? Let's hope the best!

Saturday, March 28, 2015

MOTTO"Certainty and Uncertainty feeding off each other as two hot, sweaty lovers" Great minds chose the Unknown. (Gapingvoid, today)It seems we will not be overcharged with LENR news today, I take this opportunity to tell you a few ideas regarding the great LENR Event of the next month, ICCF-19. There were 4 places in the world were I felt like a fish in water- in chronological order: the swimming pool, the libraries, the good restaurants and the scientific congresses. I am now too old and lazy to go to swim, Borges' Infinite library http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/07/23/128716508/the-universe-and-the-infinite-library is connected to my old PC and we have more books on the Kindle than on shelves, we still go to a good restaurant (ROATA-Cluj) for celebrations. I like very much scientific congresses for meeting old and new friends and new ideas- however this time i cannot come to Padua from health reasons. I hope it will be well organized and I can follow the events via the Internet.First of all I wish it would be an memorable fine congress and I wish success to organizers and participants.The list of accepted abstracts was already published. There are 33 oral presentation and 65 posters. See http://iccf19.com/program_abstract.htmlMany presentations globally a few of them, judging by the title not LENR-core papers; however congresses are organized for the participants and many participants is in the spirit of democracy- let new voices to be heard and is good for the financial balance (in theory).I give you a short list of the papers I will be missing- till I read them. A very personal selection, in harmony with the ideas promoted on Ego Out.First my favorite LENR authors:1- Michael McKubreCold Fusion-CMNS; present and projected future statusMike has a huge responsibility with this paper, in which extent will he opt for change and progress, for a new Paradigm?2- David Nagel

High Power Density Effects in Lattice-Enabled LENR Experiments
and Generators

Dave is always writing very high level and quality papers-and high power density is what the future needs!Then what will say the researcher who has opened the way toward LENR+ certainty, how many followers will he have?3- Alexander ParkhomovResearch on High-Temperature Rossi Heat Source
Analogue

What has our dear veteran friend achieved in replicating Parkhomov, great question:

10- Robert E. Godes Brillouin Energy Test Results of CECR Hypothesis11- Yasuhiro IwamuraThe Launch of a New Scheme on CMNS at Tohoku University

Last now, I think this will be especially interesting

12- Xing Zhong Li:

Lithium-An Important Additive in CMNS

Waiting for pleasant surprises too. Saint Anthony of Padua is the patron saint of lost things, he will aid LENR to find its lost luck.DAILY INFOE-Cat World Collaborative project proposal to create instruction document on how to replicate Parkhomov: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/28/e-cat-world-collaborative-project-proposal-to-create-instruction-document-on-how-to-replicate-parkhomov/

A break through in the simulation of subatomic particle processes has just been achieved that accurately predicts the mass of both the proton, the neutron and their mass difference. All the various forces and interactions involved in this balance have been identified and sized.

Before we get into this issue, let us first define some terms. There is a unit of energy called an electron volt (eV), that scientists use when talking about small things like protons, neutrons and electrons. An electron volt is actually a measurement of energy, but scientists can get away with using it to measure mass since mass and energy are related by Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2. So, in terms of MeV (Megaelectron volts, 1 MeV = 1,000,000 eV), the masses are:

Neutron = 939.56563 MeV

Proton = 938.27231 MeV

Electron = 0.51099906 MeV

The very existence of our universe rests on the precise difference between the mass of protons and neutrons. Now, scientists in Germany have calculated this value to a high level of precision and may also be able to explain why it even exists in the first place.

Previous measurements of the mass difference between the neutron and its lighter, positively-charged counterpart suggest it is approximately 0.14% of the nucleons’ average masses. But scientists have long been seeking a more precise figure. If this value had been slightly lower, the big bang may have produced too much helium and stars would never have ignited. Slightly higher and the heavier elements would have never formed.

A team based at the University of Wuppertal has now provided the most accurate calculation of the difference in mass between protons and neutrons by combining lattice quantum-chromodynamics and electrodynamics (QCD-QED) modeling to look at the atom’s fundamental building blocks – quarks and gluons. In doing so, the total mass difference was found to be 1.51 ± 0.3MeV. Past QCD-QED studies have been unable to achieve this resolution, yet experimental measurements place the difference at 1.2933322MeV. The researchers argue that the fundamental difference in neutron–proton mass may be down to a competing effect between electromagnetic forces and the mass of quarks.

The referenced simulation shows that the relationship between the strong force and the electromagnetic force in the makeup of the proton and the neutron is very finely tuned. Even the slightest change would disrupt the way photons and neutrons interact.

The existence and stability of atoms rely on the fact that neutrons are more massive than protons. The measured mass difference is only 0.14% of the average of the two masses. A slightly smaller or larger value would have led to a dramatically different universe. This simulation shows that this difference results from the competition between electromagnetic and mass isospin breaking effects.

This simulation shows that electromagnetism can add mass to the electron and the protons.

For instance, a relative neutron-proton mass difference smaller than about one third of the observed 0.14% or about 400 KeV would cause hydrogen atoms to undergo inverse beta decay, leaving predominantly neutrons.

It has become clear that a relative neutron-proton mass difference close to 0.14% is needed to explain the universe as we observe it today. As we show here, this tiny mass splitting is the result of a subtle cancellation between electromagnetic and quark mass difference effects.

This simulation shows how electromagnetism affects the tiny isospin splittings which are the subject of the present paper hereto referenced.

Also show here is how neutron-proton mass splitting is a function of quark-mass difference and electromagnetic coupling.

Now the level of electromagnetic energy needed to tip the very delicate balance between the masses of the proton and neutron is of the order of about 1 MeV or less. If a process in LENR can add electromagnetic energy to the proton and neutron pair, the interactions between the proton and the neutron would be disrupted.

For example, in the Lagano report, light isotopes of nickel(NI58) were transmuted to heaver isotopes(NI62) but quizzically no free neutrons were detected. The irradiation of an absorbed proton by a reasonably modest level of EMF(400 KeV) would transform a proton into a neutron as shown by this simulation.

OTHER

Vital, in more senses:

Meeting the Global Food Demand
of the Future by Engineering
Crop Photosynthesis and Yield Potential

Friday, March 27, 2015

Dear Friends,Just to tell you that EGO OUT has now 600 published posts - by my associate and me and has recorded over 408000 page views. I am fighting for our Cause and for my ideas and principles.And will continue to do this as long as I can. I need your support. Thank you!Peter

DAILY INFO

Parkhomov Again Replicates Rossi Effect — The Challenge is Before the Scientific Community

Results of the long-time testing of the
new variant of the analog of thermogenerator of Rossi

By Alexander Georgevich Parkhomov.

The experiments with the devices similar with
Rossi’s thermogenerator- about which I spoke at the previous seminars have shown that the mixtures of
nickel and aluminum hydride heated in a hermetically closed ceramic tube to
temperatures over 1100 C effectively prodice heat, significantly more than the
used energy.

But the working time of these reactor is too
short to produce measurable isotopic changes and also to show that the release
of the excess heat is caused by cold nuclear transmutations.

For achieving longer continuous work durations
we had to change much the construction of the reactor. First of we had to

Renounce to the calorimertry used based on the
measurement of the quantity of evaporated water because it is difficult to ake
all day addition of water.

The construction of the reactor for long
time work.

The tube of the reactor
aimed for long time work is 29 cm long and so only its central part is heated.
Due to low thermal conductivity of the ceramic he ends of the tube are not very
warm (at 1200 C in the center the ends
are not warmer that 50C; this allows the use of epoxy adhesive for closing the
tube.

For heating we have used
resistor Х23Ю5Т (Kanthal A1)

That is
working up to 1400 C.

The fuel
mixture (640 mg Ni + 60 mg LiAlH4 is in a container of thin stainless steel.
For displacing the air from the tube we have used ceramic filling/liners.

The
manometer with a limit of measurement of 25 bars is connected with the reacor
with a thin tube of stailess stel.

Reactorduringtesting

Heating of reactor to working temperature.

Measuring pressure during the heating process

The increase of pressure starts around 100 C.
Maximum pressure of appr 5 bar was
attained at 189C after this pressure starts to fal and at 900C is smaller than
atmospheric. Greatest decrease ( 0.5 bar) at 1150 C then starts to increase
slowly to atmospheric.

Heating reactor to working temperature

The
temperature 0f 1200C at the surface of he working tube was attained in 12 hours
of stepwise increase of power of the electrical heater up to 630W. After this
the power necessary to maintain the temperature of 1200C decreases in 1 hour to
330W

The power of heating during almost 4 days till
the burning out of the heater

For almost 3 days the power necessary to
maintain the temperature of the reactor tube at 1200C was in the limits of
300-400W. Before the burning out, the power started to incresase and at burning
out it was at 600W

The burning out was caused by stepwise
oxidation of the resistor.

Working of the reactor with the new heater

The temperature
of 1200C was maintained with using the power of heater of 500-700W.

The power necessary for maintaining the given
temperature.

At
temperatures over 700 C the reactor with fuel consumes less electrical energy
than that necessary for the reactor with no fuel. This shows the presence of a
heat source besides the electrical heater.

For
heating to the temperature of 1200 C the power necessary for reactor with no
fuel is 1100 W, for reactors with fuel first we need 650W and after an hour
300- 330 W.

From this
we can evaluate that the excess heat is 800W. The thermal coefficient COP is
1100/330= 3.3

But this
is only a rough estimate not considering the differences between processes of
thermo-generation with and without fuel.

When there is no internal heat source, the temperatures outside and inside are the same and the temperature measured with the thermocouple is equal with the tempeaure measured with the temperature of the surface of the heater.

When the reactor works with fuel a thermal flux is started from inside to outside that leads to a temperature gradient. Therefore the temperature measured with the thermocouple is greater than the temperature of the surface of the heater.

At the temperature of 1200C in the proximity of the thermocouple the temperature of the surface of the heater is 1070 C. Thus so the reactor produces only the heat necessary without fuel to heat to 1070C that is 800W and not 1100.

The thermal coefficient is COP= 800/330=2.4.

Container with fuel after extraction of the tube of the reactor. Sided by ceramic inserts.

Fuel after extraction from the container.

Image of the used fuel at optical microscope.

Conclusions.

1. The apparatus worked continuously for more
than 3 days, producing more than twice as much as the applied electrical
energy. 50 kWh or 18MJ were produced in excess of the electrical energy
expended. This amount of energy could be obtained by burning 350g of
petroleum products.

2. The reactor chamber pressure during slow
burning was relatively low (in this experiment up to 5 bar)

3. The used fuel had the appearance of soft
droplets of golden color mixed with grey powder.

4. The resultant used fuel mixture was sent for
analysis of atomic and isotopic composition. But the results,
unfortunately, have not yet been received.